ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014
Cognitive enhancement kept within contexts: neuroethics and informed public policy.
Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain augmentation and neuroscience technologies: current applications, challenges, ethics and future prospects.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022Review
- Acceptability of Neuroscientific Interventions in Education.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Telemedicine and Virtual Reality at Time of COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview for Future Perspectives in Neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Pharmacological Human Enhancement: An Overview of the Looming Bioethical and Regulatory Challenges.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Review
- Developing expertise, customising sleep, enhancing study practices: exploring the legitimisation of modafinil use within the accounts of UK undergraduate students.Drugs (Abingdon, England) · 2019Article
- A four-part working bibliography of neuroethics: part 3 - "second tradition neuroethics" - ethical issues in neuroscience.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2016Article
- Prospects for Optogenetic Augmentation of Brain Function.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2015Review
- Article
- Context-Dependent Risk & Benefit Sensitivity Mediate Judgments About Cognitive Enhancement.AJOB neuroscienceArticle
- Mechanisms and Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Methylphenidate as a cognitive enhancer in healthy young people.Dementia & neuropsychologiaArticle
- The role of hormesis in the functional performance and protection of neural systems.Brain circulationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neurothics has far greater responsibilities than merely noting potential human enhancements arriving from novel brain-centered biotechnologies and tracking their implications for ethics and civic life. Neuroethics must utilize the best cognitive and neuroscientific knowledge to shape incisive discussions about what could possibly count as enhancement in the first place, and what should count as genuinely "cognitive" enhancement. Where cognitive processing and the mental life is concerned, the lived context of psychological performance is paramount. Starting with an enhancement to the mental abilities of an individual, only performances on real-world exercises can determine what has actually been cognitively improved. And what can concretely counts as some specific sort of cognitive improvement is largely determined by the classificatory frameworks of cultures, not brain scans or laboratory experiments. Additionally, where the public must ultimately evaluate and judge the worthiness of individual performance enhancements, we mustn't presume that public approval towards enhancers will somehow automatically arrive without due regard to civic ideals such as the common good or social justice. In the absence of any nuanced appreciation for the control which performance contexts and public contexts exert over what "cognitive" enhancements could actually be, enthusiastic promoters of cognitive enhancement can all too easily depict safe and effective brain modifications as surely good for us and for society. These enthusiasts are not unaware of oft-heard observations about serious hurdles for reliable enhancement from neurophysiological modifications. Yet those observations are far more common than penetrating investigations into the implications to those hurdles for a sound public understanding of cognitive enhancement, and a wise policy review over cognitive enhancement. We offer some crucial recommendations for undertaking such investigations, so that cognitive enhancers that truly deserve public approval can be better identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.